I realize that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but please turn me on to your weed supplier because you are smoking some really good stuff. I wish I was hallucinating like that.
I don't mean to sound condescending, but did you research the history of Facebook before you make uninformed comments? Zuckerberg was very savvy in how he structured the IPO. He kept much more control then would normally be given a public traded company. In essence, he negotiated a position where he was in charge of Facebook's fate. So yes, it is his problem and not those of the banks and investors.
Everyone seems to be ignore the big Gorilla in the room. The issue isn't the management of the IPO and capital market expectation. It is the distrust that Zuckerberg built around Facebook. There are many users, but few who are interested in opening up their pocketbooks and spend via Facebook's various marketplaces. We buy from Amazon and EBay because then garnered our trust. Facebook scared us away with their missteps over their privacy policy. Whether or not it is warranted or fair, that is the current perception. To quote my ex and close friend, "perception IS reality."
Zuckerberg has to navigate his way out of this mess. He is a smart and savvy and that will go a long way.
nice revisionist history. TCP/IP was deployed not long after it was tested and found stable. The roll out was in 81/82 and 5 years later was in medium size deployments including the NSF network and regional research networks that included hundreds of companies. TCP/IP was never planned as a government Internet, but a means to tie lots of organizations together, including companies.
It was another government/education funded project at CERN that created world wide web, and an individual at a University associated with the government funded Super computing centers who created the browser. The Web is what drove the expansion in the middle 90's. I was involved in some of the deployment of the Internet in 1982 at CMU. I had Internet connectivity continuously from the onset, including a global roll out of AFS on the Internet. None of this was commercially interesting. In 1994 I saw my first Web site, and left my software employer to join an Internet Service Provider. Within a year, growth became exponential and everyone wanted a web site.
As many are saying, it depends on where you live. I got excellent service with Sprint in the Boston area. In 7 years I did not drop one call while commuting. I never had a 4G Sprint phone, but the 3G was pretty good. I never felt my phone was getting bad throughput. I could get service even in the subway (probably through service agreements with Verizon).
Now I have AT&T with an iPhone 4Gs. I can't use my phone in the Subway. Calls made while commuting are dropped 3 to 5 times. The throughput sucks and I often find myself without connectivity even though I have 5 Bars on the phone.
I'd like to take the replies one step further. In the mid 1990s Sun, Oracle, AOL, and others were claiming the death to the PC and all desktop computers would become internet devices. The web or network would become the computer and Microsoft would be irrelevant. In response, Gates realigned the company, refocused on the Internet and released Internet Explorer for free. I believe MSNBC partnership was a service side hedge against what Microsoft saw as a Web assault on their business. NBC, Time Warner, and other television a cable outlets also feared the Web. They was the potential for movie, programming, and music companies to reach consumers directly cutting the media giants out as distributors. I was in the Cable business in 1999 and 2000 and heard this directly from a Time Warner content manager. An NBC / Microsoft offering made sense.
By 2004/2005 the partnership no longer made sense. Time Warner / AOL didn't take over the world and media was shifting to individuals through blogging and a trend towards media streaming. YouTube appeared on the scene in 2005/2006 along with Google Video. The trend towards individual contributions has continued to change the nature of news reporting.
I think the biggest change was the movement of news channels from delivering news to providing news entertainment. IMHO Fox, MSNBC, and CNN are now entertainment assets. This goes beyond the original vision of MSNBC as an Internet news outlet.
I had a business in 2000 that connected to T9 enabled phones to Exchange. IT Managers were excited about the idea because it was much lower cost than two way Blackberrys. I found T9 easy to use because the predictive text feature worked 99% of the time. The professionals hated it. Not because it didn't work, but because there was a learning curve.
5 years later, teenagers and college students were expert at T9 for texting. My 30 year old niece tells me that she was just as fast at using T9 as the touch QWERY keyboard on her iPad.
I think this is an interesting idea that will be obsolete before it catches on.
Yes, and they should announce the end of life of their current platform so that sales drop to zero. Oh, and they should abandon their entirely new product line in favor of Windows Phone 8. It's probably time for Heins to right some serious memo about how RIM is on a burning platform.
Yes I know, it should be write the memo. Gosh I miss post-posting editing.
Yes, and they should announce the end of life of their current platform so that sales drop to zero. Oh, and they should abandon their entirely new product line in favor of Windows Phone 8. It's probably time for Heins to right some serious memo about how RIM is on a burning platform.
There is often an ideological debate on these pages about openness and transparency. Some believe open source is a democratic process and everyone should have a say. The debate of over.deb versus.rpm on the ill fated MeeGo forum a few years ago demonstrated this. The debate raged on and In the end, Intel made their choice.
Open source is not a democracy. Both Linus and Mark demonstrate this. It is a business and like most businesses leadership is not elected and therefore doesn't represent the views of the participants.
I am not surprised by Mark's decision. In the face of device lock out by the market leaders, it's best to align yourself with the 600 lb gorilla. If Ubuntu toes the line it will be hard for Microsoft to lock out Ubuntu based on security arguments.
In business I see large companies frightened by the GPL license. While the intent is good, there are too many grey areas that can open a company to litigation. Some are willing to take this risk and others aren't. Looks like Canonical is drawing a line in the sand. This could be interpreted as a wake up call the the FSF.
I use iGoogle. I will miss it. I hope they will have something to replace it. IMHO, Google services always have the feel of something half finished. They are kinda like the anti Apple.
Blind searches would be somewhat useless. Let's say the goal is not to lock people up, but prevent crimes from occurring. From discussions here, the analysis of searches would produce many more false positives then actual crimes. If the police had to investigate each and every false positives, they would not be available to work on committed crimes. This seems like a costly endeavor for limited benefits.
On the other hand, targeted searches would be useful, if police suspect a terrorist operative, then watching his/her searches for train or flight schedules or parts for making improvised explosive devices might help prevent a terror attack.
I think you overstate the amount of code generated by the MOC processor. Qt wouldn't need MOC if C++ produced actual meta data for its objects. Without the meta data, dynamic binding is very hard to do. I'd say it is an elegant solution to a key missing capability of C++.
While boost is in wide use, Qt has grown exponentially over the past few years independent of Nokia mobile projects. It is one of the key frameworks used in building Linux based touch oriented embedded systems.
Saying the KDE isn't C++ is like saying Linux applications aren't C++ because the include a large variety of system and add on libraries to do their work.
Qt is written in C++. Even the MOC is written in C++..
An interesting side note is that many of the capabilities required by Qt for handling dynamic binding have been added to C++ 2011.
I agree, but it goes one step further. He was a team lead and lost that status for not getting along with others in the team. Its one thing to hold and share your beliefs, its another to let it get in the way of managing your team.
I think experience on commercial projects allows you to develop better coding practices and develop skills for estimating project size. It usually takes 6 months to a year for one of our fresh masters level graduates to become fully productive.
At our company, we won't hire you unless we are pretty sure you can do the job. It is our responsibility to make sure you learn the skills to be productive.
I don't play games and don't have a game console, so I will try to relate this to an industry I do understand, videos and music.I own very few videos. The ones I do own, Disney princess movies, get a lot of use. I paid a fair price for them, and when my daughter finally outgrows them, I will pass them on to a relative or neighbor. The movies that I don't own, I watch on Netflix or Amazon. $1.99 for 48 hours of viewing is a very good price for Toy Story or Shrek that my daughter will watch once and lose interest. $15 - $20 for a view at a movie theater just doesn't cut it. To me, no movie is worth that price.
If Disney decided that I couldn't resell the movies, I would probably still pay $14.99 for a DVD. It wouldn't take many $1.99 plays to reach the $14.99. If Disney started charging $70 for the DVD then I would look for movies from another vendor.
Now if Disney and Universal and Fox got together and all adopted the $70 price and forced other studios to do the same, well then I would hope that people would get together and file an anti trust case for collusion against the studios.
This is the problem I have with DRM. It isn't the protection of the media. It is the collusive price practices that go along with it. If the game industry got together and set standards that forced up the price of the game, then I would find it anti competitive. If one or two companies did that and it opened the industry to other companies who offered fairer prices, then I would go with the lower cost alternatives.
Boycott is a strong concept and hard to implement. Not buying a product because the perceived value is not worth the price would be self regulating and more realistic.
So I ask, why is the movie industry failing? Why are fewer and fewer people attending movies at theaters? Is it the pirate market for DVD? I think it is that the perceived value for Movies does not match the theater price. The same is true for CDs and DVDs. For me, the perceived value of today's movies is $1.99 for most movies. That is why I subscribe to NetFlix and Amazon. I get what I pay for.
If Schilling believes people will buy his products at inflated prices and not get residual value for its sale, or reduced value for the price then only time will tell.
I am not surprised by the ruling and agree with the decision. I imaged the discussion to focus on public versus private information. Police do not need a warrant to "tail" a suspect as they move through public streets. However, they need a warrant to follow the suspect into private property as their entrance would be trespassing.
It is good to know that the court viewed the attachment of the device to the vehicle as trespassing. While the court did not explicitly say that a warrant is required in all cases, it is clear the the trespassing issue has implications in both long term and short term use of implantable or attachable technology for surveillance.
If we keep spending all of our money on airline risk mitigation rather than science and education, then none of our children are going to be able to afford to fly.
I don't like Hollywood movies post 1980. The stories are insipid and repetitive. There are no surprises. The acting is polished, but without depth. I leave major movies with the feeling that I have been cheated.
This has nothing to do with modern TV choice, competitive media, or the exorbitant price of candy or Cokes at the theater. It is more basic. I do not feel entertained by the shit that Hollywood is pouring out. It is insulting and demeaning.
Spoken like a coward without insight or knowledge. Your point makes no sense and only further supports my argument. At one time, GM WAS the largest and most successful corporation in the world. I would say that they WERE a good example of a successful company. It took 40 years of decline to drive them into bankruptcy. Wall Street, driven by the institutional investors mentioned above, never stepped up to allow GM to respond to market changes. They remained in the 1970s because investors were unwilling to take the risk necessary to transform them into a 21st century company.
The problem with you is that anyone who comes up with a positive suggestion is a liberal. The most likely means that you believe anyone with no ideas and poor judgement is a conservative. Using your own criteria, I guess you are a conservative?
Slashdot Mirror
Comcast says that they have a 250mb cap, but I have never noticed any change in my service from lots of video downloads.
I realize that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but please turn me on to your weed supplier because you are smoking some really good stuff. I wish I was hallucinating like that.
I don't mean to sound condescending, but did you research the history of Facebook before you make uninformed comments? Zuckerberg was very savvy in how he structured the IPO. He kept much more control then would normally be given a public traded company. In essence, he negotiated a position where he was in charge of Facebook's fate. So yes, it is his problem and not those of the banks and investors.
Everyone seems to be ignore the big Gorilla in the room. The issue isn't the management of the IPO and capital market expectation. It is the distrust that Zuckerberg built around Facebook. There are many users, but few who are interested in opening up their pocketbooks and spend via Facebook's various marketplaces. We buy from Amazon and EBay because then garnered our trust. Facebook scared us away with their missteps over their privacy policy. Whether or not it is warranted or fair, that is the current perception. To quote my ex and close friend, "perception IS reality."
Zuckerberg has to navigate his way out of this mess. He is a smart and savvy and that will go a long way.
nice revisionist history. TCP/IP was deployed not long after it was tested and found stable. The roll out was in 81/82 and 5 years later was in medium size deployments including the NSF network and regional research networks that included hundreds of companies. TCP/IP was never planned as a government Internet, but a means to tie lots of organizations together, including companies.
It was another government/education funded project at CERN that created world wide web, and an individual at a University associated with the government funded Super computing centers who created the browser. The Web is what drove the expansion in the middle 90's. I was involved in some of the deployment of the Internet in 1982 at CMU. I had Internet connectivity continuously from the onset, including a global roll out of AFS on the Internet. None of this was commercially interesting. In 1994 I saw my first Web site, and left my software employer to join an Internet Service Provider. Within a year, growth became exponential and everyone wanted a web site.
As many are saying, it depends on where you live. I got excellent service with Sprint in the Boston area. In 7 years I did not drop one call while commuting. I never had a 4G Sprint phone, but the 3G was pretty good. I never felt my phone was getting bad throughput. I could get service even in the subway (probably through service agreements with Verizon).
Now I have AT&T with an iPhone 4Gs. I can't use my phone in the Subway. Calls made while commuting are dropped 3 to 5 times. The throughput sucks and I often find myself without connectivity even though I have 5 Bars on the phone.
I'd like to take the replies one step further. In the mid 1990s Sun, Oracle, AOL, and others were claiming the death to the PC and all desktop computers would become internet devices. The web or network would become the computer and Microsoft would be irrelevant. In response, Gates realigned the company, refocused on the Internet and released Internet Explorer for free. I believe MSNBC partnership was a service side hedge against what Microsoft saw as a Web assault on their business. NBC, Time Warner, and other television a cable outlets also feared the Web. They was the potential for movie, programming, and music companies to reach consumers directly cutting the media giants out as distributors. I was in the Cable business in 1999 and 2000 and heard this directly from a Time Warner content manager. An NBC / Microsoft offering made sense.
By 2004/2005 the partnership no longer made sense. Time Warner / AOL didn't take over the world and media was shifting to individuals through blogging and a trend towards media streaming. YouTube appeared on the scene in 2005/2006 along with Google Video. The trend towards individual contributions has continued to change the nature of news reporting.
I think the biggest change was the movement of news channels from delivering news to providing news entertainment. IMHO Fox, MSNBC, and CNN are now entertainment assets. This goes beyond the original vision of MSNBC as an Internet news outlet.
I had a business in 2000 that connected to T9 enabled phones to Exchange. IT Managers were excited about the idea because it was much lower cost than two way Blackberrys. I found T9 easy to use because the predictive text feature worked 99% of the time. The professionals hated it. Not because it didn't work, but because there was a learning curve.
5 years later, teenagers and college students were expert at T9 for texting. My 30 year old niece tells me that she was just as fast at using T9 as the touch QWERY keyboard on her iPad.
I think this is an interesting idea that will be obsolete before it catches on.
Yes, and they should announce the end of life of their current platform so that sales drop to zero. Oh, and they should abandon their entirely new product line in favor of Windows Phone 8. It's probably time for Heins to right some serious memo about how RIM is on a burning platform.
Yes I know, it should be write the memo. Gosh I miss post-posting editing.
Yes, and they should announce the end of life of their current platform so that sales drop to zero. Oh, and they should abandon their entirely new product line in favor of Windows Phone 8. It's probably time for Heins to right some serious memo about how RIM is on a burning platform.
There is often an ideological debate on these pages about openness and transparency. Some believe open source is a democratic process and everyone should have a say. The debate of over .deb versus .rpm on the ill fated MeeGo forum a few years ago demonstrated this. The debate raged on and In the end, Intel made their choice.
Open source is not a democracy. Both Linus and Mark demonstrate this. It is a business and like most businesses leadership is not elected and therefore doesn't represent the views of the participants.
I am not surprised by Mark's decision. In the face of device lock out by the market leaders, it's best to align yourself with the 600 lb gorilla. If Ubuntu toes the line it will be hard for Microsoft to lock out Ubuntu based on security arguments.
In business I see large companies frightened by the GPL license. While the intent is good, there are too many grey areas that can open a company to litigation. Some are willing to take this risk and others aren't. Looks like Canonical is drawing a line in the sand. This could be interpreted as a wake up call the the FSF.
I use iGoogle. I will miss it. I hope they will have something to replace it. IMHO, Google services always have the feel of something half finished. They are kinda like the anti Apple.
Asking people to stop destroying the planet is like asking rabbits to stop fucking and making new bunnies.
Blind searches would be somewhat useless. Let's say the goal is not to lock people up, but prevent crimes from occurring. From discussions here, the analysis of searches would produce many more false positives then actual crimes. If the police had to investigate each and every false positives, they would not be available to work on committed crimes. This seems like a costly endeavor for limited benefits.
On the other hand, targeted searches would be useful, if police suspect a terrorist operative, then watching his/her searches for train or flight schedules or parts for making improvised explosive devices might help prevent a terror attack.
I suspect the latter is already in use.
perhaps his intelligence is by design.
I think you overstate the amount of code generated by the MOC processor. Qt wouldn't need MOC if C++ produced actual meta data for its objects. Without the meta data, dynamic binding is very hard to do. I'd say it is an elegant solution to a key missing capability of C++.
While boost is in wide use, Qt has grown exponentially over the past few years independent of Nokia mobile projects. It is one of the key frameworks used in building Linux based touch oriented embedded systems.
Saying the KDE isn't C++ is like saying Linux applications aren't C++ because the include a large variety of system and add on libraries to do their work.
Qt is written in C++. Even the MOC is written in C++..
An interesting side note is that many of the capabilities required by Qt for handling dynamic binding have been added to C++ 2011.
I agree, but it goes one step further. He was a team lead and lost that status for not getting along with others in the team. Its one thing to hold and share your beliefs, its another to let it get in the way of managing your team.
I think experience on commercial projects allows you to develop better coding practices and develop skills for estimating project size. It usually takes 6 months to a year for one of our fresh masters level graduates to become fully productive.
At our company, we won't hire you unless we are pretty sure you can do the job. It is our responsibility to make sure you learn the skills to be productive.
Sorry, but we reserve the GUI design jobs for Monkeys and typewriters.
I don't play games and don't have a game console, so I will try to relate this to an industry I do understand, videos and music.I own very few videos. The ones I do own, Disney princess movies, get a lot of use. I paid a fair price for them, and when my daughter finally outgrows them, I will pass them on to a relative or neighbor. The movies that I don't own, I watch on Netflix or Amazon. $1.99 for 48 hours of viewing is a very good price for Toy Story or Shrek that my daughter will watch once and lose interest. $15 - $20 for a view at a movie theater just doesn't cut it. To me, no movie is worth that price.
If Disney decided that I couldn't resell the movies, I would probably still pay $14.99 for a DVD. It wouldn't take many $1.99 plays to reach the $14.99. If Disney started charging $70 for the DVD then I would look for movies from another vendor.
Now if Disney and Universal and Fox got together and all adopted the $70 price and forced other studios to do the same, well then I would hope that people would get together and file an anti trust case for collusion against the studios.
This is the problem I have with DRM. It isn't the protection of the media. It is the collusive price practices that go along with it. If the game industry got together and set standards that forced up the price of the game, then I would find it anti competitive. If one or two companies did that and it opened the industry to other companies who offered fairer prices, then I would go with the lower cost alternatives.
Boycott is a strong concept and hard to implement. Not buying a product because the perceived value is not worth the price would be self regulating and more realistic.
So I ask, why is the movie industry failing? Why are fewer and fewer people attending movies at theaters? Is it the pirate market for DVD? I think it is that the perceived value for Movies does not match the theater price. The same is true for CDs and DVDs. For me, the perceived value of today's movies is $1.99 for most movies. That is why I subscribe to NetFlix and Amazon. I get what I pay for.
If Schilling believes people will buy his products at inflated prices and not get residual value for its sale, or reduced value for the price then only time will tell.
I am not surprised by the ruling and agree with the decision. I imaged the discussion to focus on public versus private information. Police do not need a warrant to "tail" a suspect as they move through public streets. However, they need a warrant to follow the suspect into private property as their entrance would be trespassing.
It is good to know that the court viewed the attachment of the device to the vehicle as trespassing. While the court did not explicitly say that a warrant is required in all cases, it is clear the the trespassing issue has implications in both long term and short term use of implantable or attachable technology for surveillance.
If we keep spending all of our money on airline risk mitigation rather than science and education, then none of our children are going to be able to afford to fly.
I don't like Hollywood movies post 1980. The stories are insipid and repetitive. There are no surprises. The acting is polished, but without depth. I leave major movies with the feeling that I have been cheated.
This has nothing to do with modern TV choice, competitive media, or the exorbitant price of candy or Cokes at the theater. It is more basic. I do not feel entertained by the shit that Hollywood is pouring out. It is insulting and demeaning.
Other than that, everything is great!!!!
I also hear that they have the rights to levy taxes on Tea without representation.
Unfortunately, the guy who came up with this idea isn't the dimmest light bulb in the pack.
Spoken like a coward without insight or knowledge. Your point makes no sense and only further supports my argument. At one time, GM WAS the largest and most successful corporation in the world. I would say that they WERE a good example of a successful company. It took 40 years of decline to drive them into bankruptcy. Wall Street, driven by the institutional investors mentioned above, never stepped up to allow GM to respond to market changes. They remained in the 1970s because investors were unwilling to take the risk necessary to transform them into a 21st century company.
The problem with you is that anyone who comes up with a positive suggestion is a liberal. The most likely means that you believe anyone with no ideas and poor judgement is a conservative. Using your own criteria, I guess you are a conservative?